Independent - of Facts
most self-proclaimed 'independent' voters are not supporters of ideas, only of what they call 'common sense'
but first, a word to our sponsors:
just a note for free subscribers: the gravy train is almost pulling in to the terminal (that’s a metaphor). people today want free everything (that’s a meaningless cliche). do you realize what it costs to put out a blog? (almost nothing, actually).
if you are a regular reader (and i can tell), you’ll still have access to the blog posts after sept 1, but you won’t get the bonus stuff. and i’ll be ending access if you haven’t read at least a few by that date.
subscriptions can be had for $5/mo, or $50 a year, paid upfront (a $10 savings). there are $100 subscriptions which include bonus materials, such as free copies of my audio book ‘kid69’, my cds, and signed copies of stuff.
so, the good news is, if you’re a regular reader, you’ll be grandfathered in (or grandmothered) for a basic subscription. bad news is, if you’re just a punk who never reads the blog, take a hike.
love, s
these are the cats that will starve if you don’t subscribe
And now, on to the important news of the day.
If nothing else, this Jan. 6 hearing is exposing Trumpies as hypocrites, which even they can’t now deny. Their conspiracy theories are being debunked as each conservative witness acknowledges the truth about Donnie.
‘What good is it?’, you may say, if all minds are made up?
That’s not really a good question. Why are you so cynical?
Hard as it is to believe, there are a great many people in this country who see themselves as ‘independents’. Most of them subscribe to the ‘common sense’ school of thought, also known (ironically) as ‘follow the crowd’. These people generally don’t like to think about issues in depth. They prefer to test the way the wind is blowing, and follow. This allows for some bad choices, but occasionally a good one.
My uncle, for instance (hi, Aunt Nancy!). He had his own reasons for liking or disliking certain candidates, not necessarily based on policies. Like many people, he voted for Obama against Romney, but liked McCain against Obama the first time. I’m sure there were reasons that made sense to him, but there isn’t a huge gap in policy positions between McCain and Romney, so it was more a personal instinct thing, I’m guessing. Do you feel you can trust the candidate? But no ‘why?’ Just common sense.
Hillary, for all her accomplishments, didn’t inspire trust in these voters. That’s why she only won by 3 million votes, which apparently isn’t enough.
I remember Nixon-ites being the same way. Everyone knew Nixon was a little nutty (he was given the sobriquet ‘Tricky Dick’ long before Watergate), but he was VP for 8 years and hadn’t screwed that up too badly, so these independents figured, after the chaos of the 60s, that he was essentially an OK guy. Humphrey, his opponent in ‘68, was burdened with Vietnam, LBJ, and an insurgent third party campaign that took away the Democats ‘solid south’, not to mention the Chicago police riot (I was there), and still almost won, because, as election day neared, people remembered Nixon was a little nutty. Then, when he behaved himself the first 4 years in office, he cruised in ‘72. And yet, when the revelations came out about Watergate and ‘dirty tricks’, no one was shocked or surprised. He was acting a little nutty, and got caught.
Ross Perot was a pre-Trump foreshadowing of the ‘common sense’ approach to choosing a President. ‘Maybe he knows something. Maybe he’s on to something.’ Independents liked him for a while, and maybe if he’d advocated pussy-grabbing or hating immigrants he’d have won. The problem is, he was kind of a funny guy. Not funny as in ‘saying funny things’, but funny looking and speaking. And independents weigh that in their choices as well. Think about all the Presidents we’ve elected in the past 60+ years. Usually the most attractive, physically, wins. People with no real opinions are easily seduced. They say they want a ‘regular person’, but they really want a celebrity. Bigger than life. Bernie is about as regular a guy as there can be, but Biden is more of the old school type, like the Central Casting version of a president.
It all comes down to this ‘common sense’ theory. When people who are so inclined talk to each other, they don’t really have any well-thought out opinions, and certainly no vision or solutions. All they have is ‘gut feelings’. Sadly, their usually bloated guts are mostly unreliable. But they think that makes them ‘independent’…when the truth is they are super-dependent. Dependent on what other people think, or what other people might think if they stray from the norm. Dependent on which way the wind blows. Dependent on politicians to tell them what they should want, rather than figuring out their stance on issues by researching, listening to experts, or understanding both sides of an argument.
Ever notice how often McConnell says ‘the American people’ said such-and-such, or think such-and-such, as if the whole country were some kind of monolith. He knows it’s for the benefit of those who need to know which side they should be on. It’s the ‘common sense’ position…must be, since ‘the American people’ say it.
So, right now, while Trump has (and will always have) the support of the hard-core right, that is a comparatively small group. It’s the indies who swing one way or another when the wind blows. They may think there’s some kind of partisan hanky-panky going on in these hearings, but soon common sense will tell them something they already knew…Trump was and is a scam artist. They knew all along, and yet the wind was blowing them to the ever-present fallback position: fear. Better not choose the ‘woman’, maybe she’s Tammy Wynette after all. She might outlaw pick-up trucks, or beer. She’s out to avenge her husband. She’s part of a conspiracy to take over the world. It’s common sense! Which is ironic, in that Bill didn’t behave anywhere near as badly as Donald, yet one was never forgiven and one was never not forgiven.
All this will change soon. It’s not yet in the wind, but it’s in the air.
I consider myself an indepenent, and your characterization of independents struck me as completely 180 degrees from my own personal perspective.
Your opinion that an independent is one who "Follows the crowd", while true of the politically ignorant or simply lazy voters who refuse to do ANY research, goes completely against my own personal political philosophy.
WHY I am an independent-is because I REFUSE to follow the crowd- be it left or right.
I can understand both perspectives to a degree (usually) and sometimes one side will have a more reasonable, logical or moral argument.
There are certain topics that are blatantly partisan and ask you to forsake reason and drink that particular brand of Kool-aid.
And yes, the ignorant-on both sides-seem to let that be their raison d'etre.
Both sides do it, some more than others.
But I have to believe that to follow ANY party blindly- simply because they say they are either the party of God or the party of social justice or what have you- is to surrender your right to rationalize their values and objectives in comparison to your own.
I have never been willing to blindly follow a political party or philosophy simply because on the surface both left and right parties claim the moral highground.- yet when scrutinized BOTH parties have high levels of corruption to a sad extent.
And surprisingly the corruption is usually for the same reasons -money or power.
So when people ask me which way I lean politically , it depends on the candidates record and public views, NOT on their party or talking head on the TV or endorsement by any one particular person or group.
In that sense, I am not what you would consider an independent.
I don't follow the masses but make my own informed decisions....which pisses off just about all my friends because they usually want to convince me to join their "team"...but I refuse.
Very well written, your style is unique. Love reading these gems